Isn't opposing the Confederate flag basic decency?

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I voted no. But I used to have Nazi flags in my room and wear Fascist pins to school. So I'm not exactly politically correct.

Used to? What changed?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I wouldn't want to ride in a car with a confederate flag on it, because I don't like making others uncomfortable or want to insult anyone or look like I'm insulting anyone. The union is the law, and states are no more. Let all the old insults and slights fade away.

When did this happen?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're arguing that people shouldn't see a symbol in the way they see it.
When it was created is unlikely to drive the interpretation of those living over 150 years later.

Still, I'm curious if you believe that what the flag represents to you is the only possible interpretation.

Should the Americastanian flag (stars & stripes) be banned because to some it represents oppression of Amerindians, the conquering of Hawaii, the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, the firebombing of Dresden, etc, etc, etc?
Or is it a grand old flag because other people see liberty, accomplishment & beauty?

The American flag is the symbol of a living country, and what you're describing just reflects the fact that the flag is the symbol of the country. As the country builds new history - good or bad - the meaning of its flag will change - for good or bad.

The Confederate flag, OTOH - especially the battle flag that gets displayed as the "Confederate flag" these days - is attached to a fixed, completed period of history. Its meaning is pretty well set, and flows almost entirely from the Confederacy and the Civil War. It's been reinterpreted a bit over the years (e.g. the Klansman, Birth of a Nation, and Dukes of Hazzard), but not by much.

 

[Brickjectivity]

When did this happen?

It mostly happened before we were born when the blues and grays fought, but ever since power has shifted increasingly to the central govt. People consider USA to be their country, and the states have taken on the role of vassals of USA territories. The presidents are now chosen by popular election instead of by the state reps. Many states rely upon money from the Federal govt., and the federal govt. can trump any law a state makes, so on and so forth.

 

[Revoltingest]

The American flag is the symbol of a living country, and what you're describing just reflects the fact that the flag is the symbol of the country. As the country builds new history - good or bad - the meaning of its flag will change - for good or bad.

The Confederate flag, OTOH - especially the battle flag that gets displayed as the "Confederate flag" these days - is attached to a fixed, completed period of history. Its meaning is pretty well set, and flows almost entirely from the Confederacy and the Civil War. It's been reinterpreted a bit over the years (e.g. the Klansman, Birth of a Nation, and Dukes of Hazzard), but not by much.

While the Confederate flag's meaning might be set, it is nonetheless different for different folk.
So it is entirely wrong to tag all fans of it as racists (even if some are).
Tis simpler to say that the flag offends so many that a state government should not fly it.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The majority of southerners didn't own slaves (even if they aspired to).
Even northerners, eg, in Detroit MI, owned slaves. And Maine....it had
ambivalent feelings about slavery because of its shipping & cotton mill
industries. So was Maine really all that separate from the south?

Maine did enter the Union as a free state with the Missouri Compromise, though. And even if there were ambivalent feelings (in the same way that many Americans had ambivalent feelings towards homosexual marriage not so long ago), the dominant spirit in the North appears to me to have been one of freedom from slavery ever since the ideals of the American Revolution. Think of the reaction in the North when John Brown was hung. Think of the derision over the Fugitive Slave Act.

And even if the majority of Southerners were poor farmers without slaves, the support for slavery was still there. I mean, they fought a war over it. Even if the Civil War masqueraded as one of freedom from Federal and Industrial tyranny, it started with the secession of South Carolina when Lincoln became president--because he was an abolitionist they feared would end slavery.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maine did enter the Union as a free state with the Missouri Compromise, though. And even if there were ambivalent feelings (in the same way that many Americans had ambivalent feelings towards homosexual marriage not so long ago), the dominant spirit in the North appears to me to have been one of freedom from slavery ever since the ideals of the American Revolution. Think of the reaction in the North when John Brown was hung. Think of the derision over the Fugitive Slave Act.

And even if the majority of Southerners were poor farmers without slaves, the support for slavery was still there. I mean, they fought a war over it. Even if the Civil War masqueraded as one of freedom from Federal and Industrial tyranny, it started with the secession of South Carolina when Lincoln became president--because he was an abolitionist they feared would end slavery.

Aye, the lines were drawn between the North & South, even though there was some blurring.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Aye, the lines were drawn between the North & South, even though there was some blurring.

I do agree that the North was just as guilty over the history of slavery. Northern Industry flourished through the South's raw material. I just find it...disturbing that modern rural culture seems to be symbolized by the Confederate Flag. Which is kind of the opposite of what "good down-home country folk" say themselves to be.

(Well, maybe not in Northern New England. We seem steeped in crabbiness.)

 

[Revoltingest]

I do agree that the North was just as guilty over the history of slavery. Northern Industry flourished through the South's raw material. I just find it...disturbing that modern rural culture seems to be symbolized by the Confederate Flag. Which is kind of the opposite of what "good down-home country folk" say themselves to be.

(Well, maybe not in Northern New England. We seem steeped in crabbiness.)

I'd say the south was far guiltier in the slavery department.
You people don't seem too crabby when I was there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

While the Confederate flag's meaning might be set, it is nonetheless different for different folk.
So it is entirely wrong to tag all fans of it as racists (even if some are).
Tis simpler to say that the flag offends so many that a state government should not fly it.

I'd also say that a state that is now allied with the federal government and recognizes its authority shouldn't be flying the flag of the rebellion (treason?) against that government.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The flag wasn't officially flown until 1962 as a giant middle finger to desegregation... There is no argument for it to stay up as part of a Heritage-Not-Hate campaign because it is, was, and forever will be a giant hate banner.

If you want to remember the Confederacy, go to a museum.

Charleston is an absolutely beautiful city, and I know that South Carolina will probably forever pride itself on the idea of independence and civil disobedience and stuff like that, but this flag is not representative of the whole of its constituency and, as such, needs to be taken down, folded up, and put behind a glass case.

 

[leibowde84]

I voted no. But I used to have Nazi flags in my room and wear Fascist pins to school. So I'm not exactly politically correct.

Nazi flags?! What is that about?

 

[leibowde84]

Wait a minute.
Who started the Civil War?
I realise that the northerners won, and therefore wrote the history books.
But the fact remains that they started the war by invading.
Tom

I've got to say, this is not true, or at the very least it is extremely misleading. The leaders of the Confederacy were traitors to the United States, illegally raising an army and encouraging their citizens to join in their dissent. The Confederacy was not granted any kind of sovereignty, so they had no right to expect US troops to stay out of South Carolina, where the CONFEDERACY STARTED THE WAR BY ATTACKING FT. SUMTER.

Since the Confederacy was not a sovereign nation and had illegally started to go against the US Government, which was the sovereign nation that retained ownership of all American land, it would have been impossible for the Union to "invade" the south as you suggest. The Confederacy was merely a rebellion that never achieved any kind of official status.

The war began when the Confederates bombarded Union soldiers at Fort Sumter, South Carolina on April 12, 1861.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

As one who is European and proud of it, this is not something I can claim expertise on; but since when has ignorance been a bar on this site?

The Declaration of Independence claims the right of citizens to leave a state that they find oppressive. If its signatories had the moral right to rebel against Britain, why didn't the South have the moral right to rebel against the USA? So much for the "treason" claim.

Can flags be tainted by association? Is the Stars and Stripes tainted by the ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide practiced against Native Americans? Is the French flag tainted by the appalling atrocities committed in the Revolution?

If people want to fly a flag associated with their region, as opposed to a State flag or the Union flag, why not? When England meet Scotland on the sports field, we wave the cross of St George, they that of St Andrew. The latter is official, the former not: so what?

Personally, if I lived in the South of the US I'd not be too enthusiastic about it -- Protestant Christianity and politicians somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan -- but if that's your thing, then celebrate it.

 

[leibowde84]

As one who is European and proud of it, this is not something I can claim expertise on; but since when has ignorance been a bar on this site?

The Declaration of Independence claims the right of citizens to leave a state that they find oppressive. If its signatories had the moral right to rebel against Britain, why didn't the South have the moral right to rebel against the USA? So much for the "treason" claim.

Can flags be tainted by association? Is the Stars and Stripes tainted by the ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide practiced against Native Americans? Is the French flag tainted by the appalling atrocities committed in the Revolution?

If people want to fly a flag associated with their region, as opposed to a State flag or the Union flag, why not? When England meet Scotland on the sports field, we wave the cross of St George, they that of St Andrew. The latter is official, the former not: so what?

Personally, if I lived in the South of the US I'd not be too enthusiastic about it -- Protestant Christianity and politicians somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan -- but if that's your thing, then celebrate it.

The US were traitors to England. But, it was a bit different as England was a monarchy an ocean away and the states did not agree to being ruled. They were forced. All states in the US entered into the country willfully.

 

[gsa]

As one who is European and proud of it, this is not something I can claim expertise on; but since when has ignorance been a bar on this site?

The Declaration of Independence claims the right of citizens to leave a state that they find oppressive. If its signatories had the moral right to rebel against Britain, why didn't the South have the moral right to rebel against the USA? So much for the "treason" claim.

Can flags be tainted by association? Is the Stars and Stripes tainted by the ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide practiced against Native Americans? Is the French flag tainted by the appalling atrocities committed in the Revolution?

If people want to fly a flag associated with their region, as opposed to a State flag or the Union flag, why not? When England meet Scotland on the sports field, we wave the cross of St George, they that of St Andrew. The latter is official, the former not: so what?

Personally, if I lived in the South of the US I'd not be too enthusiastic about it -- Protestant Christianity and politicians somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan -- but if that's your thing, then celebrate it.

The declaration of independence (which is not, in any event, a governing document; that'd be the US Constitution) affirms the right to abolish a government that is destructive to the pursuit of the right to life and liberty; perhaps it would be a good argument for slave insurrection and rebellion, but not for southern secession. Whether you like it or not, our government, and our courts (Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)) have repeatedly rejected the claim that the states (or their political subdivisions) can unilaterally secede.

The Confederate flag is not tainted by association; it is tainted by purpose. The Confederacy only existed for the purpose of defending the slave economy that was the base of the Southern political economy at the time of the Civil War. It is symbolically indistinguishable from the Nazi flags of the Third Reich.

Jefferson Davis made it very clear that white supremacy was the fundamental purpose of the Confederacy:

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

Moreover, the primary differences between the Confederate and American constitutions involved slavery, with Confederate states losing as many rights as they gained. In fact, the Confederacy limited the rights of states in ways that were not contemplated by the US Constitution, for the purpose of defending slavery:

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.


The Confederacy also revealed its centralizing tendencies when it instituted conscription. Under the 1862 draft, men subject to service could pay another to serve for them. The Confederate congress repealed this law in 1864, and challenges in state courts failed.

The most important opposition to revocation of the exemption came on constitutional grounds. Conscription itself was attacked as an unconstitutional interference with states' rights. In an editorial in March 1864 entitled "The Sovereign States vs. Their Servants," the Richmond Whig warned about the centralizing tendencies of the Confederate Congress. The editorial used conscription as an example of the unconstitutional infringement on the states' rights. "The centralizing influences of war are apt to lead us astray. Nothing should make us forget that the five or six citizens composing the Agency at Richmond are simply and subtly the servants of their sovereignties." Nevertheless, the Whig recommended that the constitutional problems be resolved at a constitutional convention after the war.

Yet 5 state supreme courts considered challenges to the removal of the substitution, and all five challenges failed.

Moreover, the Supremacy Clause of the Confederacy constitution was identical to the US Constitution: "This Constitution, and the laws of the Confederate States, made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the Confederate States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." (emphasis added).

There is no basis, in law or fact, to argue that the Confederacy was about the "rights of states," except to the extent that the Confederacy was about the right of citizens of those states to hold slaves.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is apparent many do not realize the Civil War was fought over more things than just slavery. Taxation, secession, military, economy...of course slavery was a major issue, but that was not the only issue.
One thing I don't think we need to do is outlaw the flag. I would say it is inappropriate for state buildings to display it, as it is the flag of a another nation, but if people want to display it, that is their own prerogative. But trying to insist the flag itself is a symbol of slavery is like trying to say the swastika itself is a symbol of hatred.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I wouldn't want to ride in a car with a confederate flag on it, because I don't like making others uncomfortable or want to insult anyone or look like I'm insulting anyone. The union is the law, and states are no more. Let all the old insults and slights fade away.

Even the General Lee? Dukes of Hazzard?

 

[Revoltingest]

The declaration of independence (which is not, in any event, a governing document; that'd be the US Constitution) affirms the right to abolish a government that is destructive to the pursuit of the right to life and liberty; perhaps it would be a good argument for slave insurrection and rebellion, but not for southern secession. Whether you like it or not, our government, and our courts (Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)) have repeatedly rejected the claim that the states (or their political subdivisions) can unilaterally secede.

The Confederate flag is not tainted by association; it is tainted by purpose. The Confederacy only existed for the purpose of defending the slave economy that was the base of the Southern political economy at the time of the Civil War. It is symbolically indistinguishable from the Nazi flags of the Third Reich.

Jefferson Davis made it very clear that white supremacy was the fundamental purpose of the Confederacy:

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

Moreover, the primary differences between the Confederate and American constitutions involved slavery, with Confederate states losing as many rights as they gained. In fact, the Confederacy limited the rights of states in ways that were not contemplated by the US Constitution, for the purpose of defending slavery:

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.


The Confederacy also revealed its centralizing tendencies when it instituted conscription. Under the 1862 draft, men subject to service could pay another to serve for them. The Confederate congress repealed this law in 1864, and challenges in state courts failed.

The most important opposition to revocation of the exemption came on constitutional grounds. Conscription itself was attacked as an unconstitutional interference with states' rights. In an editorial in March 1864 entitled "The Sovereign States vs. Their Servants," the Richmond Whig warned about the centralizing tendencies of the Confederate Congress. The editorial used conscription as an example of the unconstitutional infringement on the states' rights. "The centralizing influences of war are apt to lead us astray. Nothing should make us forget that the five or six citizens composing the Agency at Richmond are simply and subtly the servants of their sovereignties." Nevertheless, the Whig recommended that the constitutional problems be resolved at a constitutional convention after the war.

Yet 5 state supreme courts considered challenges to the removal of the substitution, and all five challenges failed.

Moreover, the Supremacy Clause of the Confederacy constitution was identical to the US Constitution: "This Constitution, and the laws of the Confederate States, made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the Confederate States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." (emphasis added).

There is no basis, in law or fact, to argue that the Confederacy was about the "rights of states," except to the extent that the Confederacy was about the right of citizens of those states to hold slaves.

You're still arguing that there is a single meaning of the flag.....your own....excluding all others.
But to narrowly argue what the Confederacy was does not address what the flag now is (to the various camps).
You certainly disagree with what others attribute to it, but things have no intrinsic meaning.
Meaning is only inferred by individuals.
Alternatives....
http://www.trainweb.org/seaboard/FLAG/confederateflag.htm
Confederate flag's meaning up for debate
There are many many others to be found.

 

[Revoltingest]

Even the General Lee? Dukes of Hazzard?

Aye, does this say "slavery"?
No....to me it says irresponsible driving & pollution...